§30 - .>.,;' FEDEBàli JBEPOaTER. ;.; �the ooanty wheyfijtp^le^teia Xere grantecl,': Saeb; bas'been tbç.ruling in Virginia- ; (Z<"'j«^er v,- i?»«s«i!«, 9:Xeigh,;ll&; An- drem V. ^w?»^, le Qrattajj, 836;); in \ej:mont,(AbbotP- v. Co' hv/rn, 28 Yt. 66,7;) in'Temt^,' {Bwàettey. Silshee, XhTex^ 615;) in: Missouri, {Johnson. trB^as^ey, 65 ,Mo. 264;) ;in Alàj-' bama, (Coltart v. ^iie«, 40 Ala. :3.5:'5r;)' in California, (Irmn Vj Scriber, 18 Cal. 503;) and ii?. New York, (Bunistead y.Bead, 31 Barb. 66e; Bolton v. BremUf,,' 3,2 Barb. 393.) �,;The reasona givw for the3€;,,ruling8 are not always the same, or even barmpnious. Tb^ subject is not a simple one; and affords a good opportijinity for subtlety and refineinaiit. AU tbç cases, bow§yer,.b^Wgone, more or less, 'upoti the argument of qpnv^nienee^ g,Hdj tb« faflttibat anyotber.rule is imprajitiçable, and ■woul4:I#avfl ail rights dependent upoa oif growing ont of the grant of letters!of administi'atipn in'an lin- settled ^nd precarioua ^condition. But in my JTidgmeflt'the conolnsioij reacbed in tbese cases is legally correct,^ aa ■wellas pr;p,ctically.i)ust, ;.;,;':. ,'. ;- -u't-f.': �; The cour^ty courts of Oregon bave the; igeopra-l aûd' fesolu' si\rejurisdiction.to grant; letteirB of administration' i^pon tbiB estates of dece^rSed persons, tp be exercised, howeveCj'by.^acb. cpunty court only in cases wbera the deceased was an inhp,b- itant of that cou]p.ty,at or ijp.iijediately beforô bis death.; !J!h& subjçct-m^tterT-jT-the graptiog of administration juppn'; the estiate of a-deceased pejr^oii- vitbput:,a.n admipistrator^r-ia ■witbin the general jurisdiction of every coainty court in Oregon, but the exercise; pf : it in partieular cases de^peiids upon the existejace of partiqular f acts, wbieh must be :aacei> tained by the court in the ipanfler prescribed by law, and in the exercise of it^ admitted jiarisdietion ;to grant lettera of admimatration in the capes enumerated in , the statute. : ('Buft if ,the person iaaiatdead, or the administration pf, bis estate h^s already been ^isposed o|,,,tben the subjeet-mattçif is not witbin the jurisdiction pf ,tbe court; it does npt ax;iat,:a»d a deoree apppinting aji . admiQistrator in suoh case is:simply ^oid. I am aware that tb^; court of appe^ls of New. ioj^i (Modc-ngas y, .E. B. S.Insiit}ition, 63 N. Y. 460) by a baiq ����
